CogAT this year for 2nd grade

[Anonymous]

I agree that soley using test scores is not a perfect system. And I realize that CogAT and NNAT are not IQ tests. In spite of this, most school districts use scores from those two tests as the sole criteria for getting into a GT program. In Fairfax County, a lot of money, manpower, hours, and effort is spent on evaluating these children. If no system is perfect, according to you then why not just use test scores and call it a day? It's a lot cheaper and easier to come up with a test cutoff and allow only those above the threshold in.

In both cases, there will be children who don't belong in the GT program as well as children who should be in there who aren't. But using test scores alone is much quicker and cheaper, and that's important in the budget crunch our school district is in.

Anonymous wrote:

The AAP in Fairfax County has very lax standards. Most programs across the country use a 130 IQ score or similar to screen students. There are no other options - no push from mommy and daddy to get in, no taking of other tests, etc. It actually surprises me that a student with score in the 115-122 range would even be considered for the AAP. Those are pretty average scores - especially for this area.

We don't have IQ scores for these children. The CogAT and NNAT are not IQ tests, and the County cannot administer individual IQ testing to every student. So admission cannot be based on IQ.

As a proxy for IQ, we use ability tests as well as teacher assessments, work samples, and recommendations. No one said it's a perfect system, but a system based purely on a single numerical score isn't going to be perfect either.

[Anonymous]

Well Said.

"I agree that soley using test scores is not a perfect system. And I realize that CogAT and NNAT are not IQ tests. In spite of this, most school districts use scores from those two tests as the sole criteria for getting into a GT program. In Fairfax County, a lot of money, manpower, hours, and effort is spent on evaluating these children. If no system is perfect, according to you then why not just use test scores and call it a day? It's a lot cheaper and easier to come up with a test cutoff and allow only those above the threshold in.

In both cases, there will be children who don't belong in the GT program as well as children who should be in there who aren't. But using test scores alone is much quicker and cheaper, and that's important in the budget crunch our school district is in. "

[Anonymous]

If no system is perfect, according to you then why not just use test scores and call it a day? It's a lot cheaper and easier to come up with a test cutoff and allow only those above the threshold in.

Because this method is known to exclude children with specific learning disabilities (for example, dyslexia), children from disadvantaged backgrounds and children for whom English is a second language. I think it says something about FCPS that they are not OK with accepting that risk. Yes, it makes the selection system more arcane and take longer. But it's better than the alternative.

[Anonymous]

I thought NNAT accounted for the language and cultural differences, and that's why FCPS added it.

To me the whole process of getting in is a bit ridiculous (and my child is in the program). When I read about the history of the program in Fairfax County, it sounds like it was really a program for accelerated learners, with only about 5% of the students in the program. Now it seems just to be the class for "smart kids." I believe that 15% of the student body is in the Advanced Academic Program. (And I don't doubt that is a big reason it is no longer called the "Gifted and Talented" program.) It must really water down the program for those students who really are "gifted" or at least scoring in the "very superior" range on these tests. And I'm not saying this because my child is one of those truly "gifted" or "very superior" students, he's not.

I just don't see how a student who scores in the 115-122 range on each and every subset of these tests can perform at the same level as students who score in the 130s, 140s, and 150s.

Anonymous wrote:

If no system is perfect, according to you then why not just use test scores and call it a day? It's a lot cheaper and easier to come up with a test cutoff and allow only those above the threshold in.

Because this method is known to exclude children with specific learning disabilities (for example, dyslexia), children from disadvantaged backgrounds and children for whom English is a second language. I think it says something about FCPS that they are not OK with accepting that risk. Yes, it makes the selection system more arcane and take longer. But it's better than the alternative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought NNAT accounted for the language and cultural differences, and that's why FCPS added it.

To me the whole process of getting in is a bit ridiculous (and my child is in the program). When I read about the history of the program in Fairfax County, it sounds like it was really a program for accelerated learners, with only about 5% of the students in the program. Now it seems just to be the class for "smart kids." I believe that 15% of the student body is in the Advanced Academic Program. (And I don't doubt that is a big reason it is no longer called the "Gifted and Talented" program.) It must really water down the program for those students who really are "gifted" or at least scoring in the "very superior" range on these tests. And I'm not saying this because my child is one of those truly "gifted" or "very superior" students, he's not.

I just don't see how a student who scores in the 115-122 range on each and every subset of these tests can perform at the same level as students who score in the 130s, 140s, and 150s.

Anonymous wrote:

If no system is perfect, according to you then why not just use test scores and call it a day? It's a lot cheaper and easier to come up with a test cutoff and allow only those above the threshold in.

Because this method is known to exclude children with specific learning disabilities (for example, dyslexia), children from disadvantaged backgrounds and children for whom English is a second language. I think it says something about FCPS that they are not OK with accepting that risk. Yes, it makes the selection system more arcane and take longer. But it's better than the alternative.

but as we have seen some of these kids can "excell." You don't want to keep them out do you when they have "needs" not being met by the regular classroom? Esp. when their parents worked so hard to get them in.

[Anonymous]

I think some of you are arguing from the premise that the scores are always reflective of a child's abilities. Part of the reason there is more to the process than test scores is that there are some kids who, for whatever reason, don't test well on these tests. If we could say that the test scores are 100% accurate in reflecting a child's abilities, that would be a different story.

But the process is designed to capture those kids who didn't test up to their ability level. This is not high-schoolers taking the SATs; these are 7-yr olds who may have never taken any type of standardized test before. They get distracted, maybe they don't pay attention when the teacher reads one or two of the questions (the teacher is not allowed to repeat a question), etc. And missing just a few questions makes a huge difference in the scores.

[Anonymous]

I'm "arguing" from the premise that a child who has low scores on each of 3 subsets of the CoGAT and on the NNAT does not necessarily belong in AAP, despite his or her parent claiming the child does not test well, that other kids with high test scores on any or all of these tests was obviously test prepped, and that the child is excelling six weeks into the school year, despite his or her low scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think some of you are arguing from the premise that the scores are always reflective of a child's abilities. Part of the reason there is more to the process than test scores is that there are some kids who, for whatever reason, don't test well on these tests. If we could say that the test scores are 100% accurate in reflecting a child's abilities, that would be a different story.

But the process is designed to capture those kids who didn't test up to their ability level. This is not high-schoolers taking the SATs; these are 7-yr olds who may have never taken any type of standardized test before. They get distracted, maybe they don't pay attention when the teacher reads one or two of the questions (the teacher is not allowed to repeat a question), etc. And missing just a few questions makes a huge difference in the scores.

well then let them take it again next year when it is written. If they're getting 115-125 on both test administrataions tht should tell you something.

[Anonymous]

I'm "arguing" from the premise that a child who has low scores on each of 3 subsets of the CoGAT and on the NNAT does not necessarily belong in AAP, despite his or her parent claiming the child does not test well, that other kids with high test scores on any or all of these tests was obviously test prepped, and that the child is excelling six weeks into the school year, despite his or her low scores.

Angry much?

[Anonymous]

well then let them take it again next year when it is written. If they're getting 115-125 on both test administrataions tht should tell you something.

So if that was your child, you'd do nothing, let them spend an entire year in the base school classroom even if you felt it wasn't the best place for them, and wait until the next year to be retested?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm "arguing" from the premise that a child who has low scores on each of 3 subsets of the CoGAT and on the NNAT does not necessarily belong in AAP, despite his or her parent claiming the child does not test well, that other kids with high test scores on any or all of these tests was obviously test prepped, and that the child is excelling six weeks into the school year, despite his or her low scores.

+1. pretty much sys it all. The scores should be necessary but not sufficient. For admittance, the kid should get high scores, like 128 composite and a high GBRS. Just my humble opinion. Of course, the county haas tghe right to administer it any way they see fit for since it is free.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

well then let them take it again next year when it is written. If they're getting 115-125 on both test administrataions tht should tell you something.

So if that was your child, you'd do nothing, let them spend an entire year in the base school classroom even if you felt it wasn't the best place for them, and wait until the next year to be retested?

but it's really not about what you think, that's the whole point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

well then let them take it again next year when it is written. If they're getting 115-125 on both test administrataions tht should tell you something.

So if that was your child, you'd do nothing, let them spend an entire year in the base school classroom even if you felt it wasn't the best place for them, and wait until the next year to be retested?

but it's really not about what you think, that's the whole point.

if admission to AAP was based on what the parent thinks is best for their child, half the students in the FCPS if not more would be in the AAP programa.

[Anonymous]

but it's really not about what you think, that's the whole point.

So parents should have no input in the process? Who knows your child best - you, or a teacher who's had your child in class for a couple of months before s/he has to fill out the GBRS?

As usual, this has devolved into the "test scores are the be all and end all" camp, and those who think other factors should be considered relevant. There's no way to reconcile these two groups, and eventually the discussion turns nasty.

It's too bad because it detracts from this forum's usefulness. And I'm kicking myself for even bothering to try to engage in the conversation - my kids are already IN the AAP Center (and yes, they tested into the screening pool) so I shouldn't even care, but I think the process should be fair to ALL children including ones who may not have tested well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm "arguing" from the premise that a child who has low scores on each of 3 subsets of the CoGAT and on the NNAT does not necessarily belong in AAP, despite his or her parent claiming the child does not test well, that other kids with high test scores on any or all of these tests was obviously test prepped, and that the child is excelling six weeks into the school year, despite his or her low scores.

I never claimed that every kid is test prepped, only that it is possible to test prep. And 120 is not a low score....90 is a low score. In my case, DD was distracted, because we got a puppy the night before. No one told us that the CogAT's were going to be given on a specific date.

GBRS scores were very high....school work is uniformly excellent.

The thing is, FCPS knows that the tests are not perfect, and that standardized tests for second graders is not optimal. It goes both ways, some score better than ability, some score worse. Some parents pay for test prep....and it does exist...google CogAT test prep. They claim 15-20 point improvement. The difference in 115 and 130 is only a handful of questions.

I know FCPS tries to get children into AAP, they look for evidence.